modern phonics instruction. · phonics instruction has been recommended for use in schools for many...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 328 900 CS 010 429
AUTHOR Groff, PatrickTITLE Modern Phonics Instruction.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC. Programs for the Improvement ofPractice.
PUB DATE 89NOTE 25p.; Commissioned for the OERI Literacy Project.11111 TYPE Information Abalyses (070)
EDRS PRICE MFO:/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Decoding (Reading); *Eciocational
Philosc:phy; Elementary Education; *Phonics; *ReadingImprovement; *Reading Strategies; Sight Method; CtghtVocabulary; Theory Practice Relationship; *WordRecognition
IDENTIFIERS Reading Theories
ABSTRACTNumerous reviews of the experimental research
conclude that phonics is indispensable in word recognitioninstruction. However, there have been numerous objections to phonicsteaching over the years. Some of the intolerance of phonics teachingreflects a lack of knowledge about the subject. Critics suggest thatphonics hinders children's learning to read. It is also feared byopponents that those promoting phonics instruction are part of aradical, right-wing plot to subvert public education for politicalreasons. MI:nis have arisen around pPonics: that English spelling istoo unpredictable for word recognition teaching to be effective, andthat it is better to learn to recognize words by sight and from theircontext. To be effective, phonics instruction should be direct,systematic, and intensive. Programs elould begin early and shouldgenerally be carried out with small groups of pupils. Instructionshould be explicit, and should aim to teach children to produce theapproximate pronunciations of words. To be most productiA,e, a phonicsprogram requires a credible system for syllabicating words and arecognition of the difficulty of read:_ng multisyllabic words.Linguistically diverse children need a phonics program that keepstheir linguistic baciwounds in mind. (Seventeen references areattached.) (SG)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
Pr "" rpm rrir w'r 411. Tf I
Modern Phonics Instruction
VS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice co Echo:Awns; Research end ,mprot,ement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC1
Tro,5 document has Leen rep, 9ouceo asrecetved from the PerSOn O C448Mhohongolatng 4
changes here been maole to imp+ove,OprOclucton culafity
Pomts ot vie* c>r op.monsstatect r ttlrs El oc ument LIO ROE rreCe.$94111/P replesoht OtttrIOE RI pOstor 0 ocItcy
. .
Patrick GroffSan Diego State University
Modern Phonics Instruction
Introduction
Phonics instruction has been recommended for use in schools for many years.
Proposals for teaching Phonics to help non-readers learn to recognize
written words were made over 450 years ago. Phonics is information about
how the speech sounds in oral language (e.g., /10/-/V-W) are represented
by letters of the alphAbet (e.g., bat). Phonics teadhing aims to develop
beginning readers' o^quisition of rules or generalizations about the
correspondences cf letters and speech sounds, e.g., that b stands for the
speeeh sound /b/.
Phonics teaching instructs children how to "decode" written words, that
is, how to translate the letters seen in words into speech sounds. The
child learning phonics then blends these spech sounds together to try to produce
a spoken word. By applyin9 phonics rules in this way readers are able to
suc, 'ssfully recognize written words.
The controversy over phonics
Over the years there have been various objecdons made against phonics
teaching. TO the present time some reading experts argue that the teaching
of phonics is a hinderance to children's learning to read. One of the easy
ways to make it difficult for children to recognize wordslinsists a recent
book sponsored by the National Council of Teachers of Englisheis to "ensure
that phonics skills are learned and used" (Goodman, et al., 1988, p. 128).
c)
c)
Sur:h opposition to phonics teaching appears to be based on ideological
considerations, however, rather than on scientific grounds. Numerous reviews
of the experimental research conclude that phonics teachir: is an indis-
pensible aspect of effective word recognition instruction (Chen, 1983;
Anderson, et al., 1985; Groff, 1987). The highly reputable Handbook of
0/1 5
Reading Research puts it this way: "Regarding the teaching of reading, the
message is clear: j.f you want to improve word-identification ability, teach
phonics" (Johnson & Baumann, 1984, p. 595).
Opponents to the teacning of phonics appear to base their
antagonisms to this instruction on highly dubious suppositions (Groff,
1987). They reject any kind of direct, systematic, and formal teaching.
Children best learn to recognize words, they say, precisely the way they
learned to speak. These reading experts also wish to be viewed as highly
progressive in their thinking. Since phonics has been taught for centuries,
they disdain it for that reason. The antagonists of phonics usually are
highly resistant, as well, to criticism from outside the reading establish-
ment. Endorsements of phonics teaching have often come from nonprofessional
groups. Such advocacy of phonics is viewed with suspicion.
It is also found that some of the intolerance of phonics teaching
stems from reading experts' lack of basic knowledge About this subject.
They appear to have learned little about phonics in their graduate sohool
years. This lack of information about phonics, coupled with the fact that
research about phonics has had notoriously little effect on how reading is
taught, doubtless add to the intensity of the opposition to this instruction,
The present practice of not holding teachers accountable for the quality ct
of their reading instruction likely contributes to the perpetuation of this
unfortunate resistance to phonics.
Some of the hostility toward phonics from teachers' organizations, as
evenwell as from professors of reading, iskhe result of the mistaken belief
2
that many advocates of intensive phonics teaching are participants in
a ladical, politically right-wing plot to discredit and sdbvert the public
schools in order to satisfy sinister ideological convictions. Not liking
conservative groups' orientation to matters in general, opponents of phonicsare suspicious their support of phonics is based on untrustworthy motives.
Myths about_phonics teaching
The circulation ct these erroneous noticns about phonics instruction
has helped perpetuate several "myths" about word recognitjon teaching.
For example, it is falsely maintained that phonics instruction hinders the
development of both comprehension and speed of reading. English spelling is
too unpredictable for phonics information to have "utility," it is charged.
That is, phonics information cannot be successfully utilized for word
recognition except in a relatively small number of instances7 its opponents charge.
Instead/it is argued that beginning readers Should learn to recognize
words by "sight" as "wholes." After such instruction "it won't be long
before they are able to handle unfamiliar [written] words and phrases in
familiar uses anywhere," teachers are advised (Goodman, 1986, p. 43).
Rather than to learn to apply phonics information, it is emphasized,
novice readers should use the sentence context in which a written word
appears as the means or cue to its recognition. Word recognition acquisition
is not viewed as a perceptual problem by the opponents of phonics. Some reading
experts proclaim that "seeing is not primarily a visual process. Neither is
reading" (Newman, 1985, p. 101). Therefore,,neV glr the syllabic length of
of words nor their number of letters supposedly is of any serious concern
in beginning reading instruction.
None of these assumptions about word recogniticn instruction car. be
verified from the results of standardized reading testings. It is not
3
e)
surprising, then, that the adversaries of phonics teaching often call for
an end to the administration of such measurements. Those who disparage
phonics teaching would sUbstitute "quasi-experimental" or "naturalistic"
assessment findings for standardized test scores (Weaver, 1989, p. 19).
It does appear that if detractors of phonics are permitted to exchange their
subjective Observations and judgments of how well phonics knowledge functions
.in word recognitionfor standardized test scoresithey customarily
report that this knowledge performs badly. This unscientific approach to
aa resolution of the usefulness of phonics appears to prejudiced and
therefore unreasonable manner in whiCh to settle this issue, however.
Modern phonics instruction
Instructions as to how to teach phonics have improved greatly in the
recent past, especially since linguists have taken an interest in how
children learn to recognize words. Writers of modern phonics programs have
eliminated most of the linguistically erroneous descriptions of speech
sounds and how they are spelled that were commonly found in phonics materials
thirty years ago. More credible explanations have emerged as to how the
application of phonics knowledge helps children recognize words. For example,
it is now accepted that the most the application of phonics can do is help
children produce the approximate pronunciation of words. It has been demon-
strated, however, that young children can readily infer and produce the
accurate or correct pronunciations of such approximate soundings (Groff,
1983). Mbreover, we have experimental verification as to the relative
difficulties and effectiveness of various tasks involved in the development
ct children's conscious awareness of speech sounds (Yopp, 1988). Detailed
plans for the order in Which phonics information is best taught, based on
the latest pertinent empirical evidence,are now available (Groff & Seymour, 1987).
4
f`
It thus has become increasingly clear that for anyone willing to
consult dispassionately the pertinent research on written word recognition
development the remaining question about phonics teaching is not
whether it should be provided for beginning readers. Instead, as the U.S.
Department of Education sponsored publication, Becoming a Nation of Readers
(Anderson, et al., 1985) puts it, the major legitimate inquiry about phonics
still to be settled is what is the most efficient way to teach it.
The relevent empirical evidence suggests that the best method for
imparting knowledge About phonics to fledgling readers must take the
following factors into account:
1. Phonics instruction Should be direct. In this respect the research
indicates that the effective teaching of word recognition is characterized
by a prearranged sequence of learning activities, clear demonstrations by
the teacher as to precisely what is to be learned, close supervision of
pupils behavior to ensure that they stay on task, and much teacher-guided
practice by pupils that reinforces and maintains the skills that they have
acquired. Research does not support the supposition of opponents of phonics
that children best learn to read in essentially the way they learned
to listen and speak.
2. Phonics in3truction should be systematic. Information taught about
phonics thus should be arranged into ascending stages of difficulty. Teachers
should make sure, through frequent testing, that learners have mastered
sufficiently an item of phonics information in this hierarchy before the
next most difficult item Is taught. This careful arrangrment of phonics
learni tasks prevents young children learning to read from facing over-
whelmingly or frustratingly difficult word recognition challenges. Research
appears to support the conclusion that preparing children to decode written
5
words,by previously teaching them the phpnics information that is used in
this decodin%helps prevent children's unsuccessful attempts at word
recognition (Anderson, et al., 1985).
3. Phonics instruction Should be intensive. Teachers Should provide a
substantive amount of practice for pupils for each speech sound-letter
oorrespondence that is taught. Practice with each of these oorrespondences
needs to be continued to the point the pupil overlearns them. In this way
phonics generalizations become a part of the learner's long-term memory.
Periods of class time devoted to phonics teaching should be scheduled
and maintained on a regular, day-by-day basis. Teaching phonics information
fortuitously, casually, or as a sUbordinate circumstance of some other
aspect of classroom instruction can be employed where practicable. This
nonintensive form of phonics instruction Should not be the basic manner in
which it is conducted, however.
4. Phonics instruction should be commenced as early as possible.
By kindergarten age many children are eager and Able to acquire phonics
information, and to learn how to apply it to the decoding of written words.
These children have the auditory and visual perceptual abilities needed to
receive this knowledge. The best way to determine this readiness for the
learning of phonics information is to give children the opportunities to
gain it. This instruction would be delayed for Short periods for dhildren
who do not respond to it effectively.
5. Phonics instruction generally should be carried out with small groups
of pupils. Trying to teach phonics information to individual pupils, one
pupil at a time, appears to be too time.consuming to be a workable practice.
On the other hand, the range of Abilities to learn phonics usually found in
6
an entire class of children often is too great to make instruction to them,
as a whole/effective. Phonics instruction to sUbegroups of the class would
seem to be the best compromise. This form of class organization likely is
superior to whole-class teadhing because it allows for more explicitly
stated objectives, more systematic diagnosis and supervision of individuals'
skill development, and better management of the skills being taught. The
studies of these issues "seem to suggest that skills-management systems are
effective in terms of students achievement And self-concept" (Otto, Wolf184
Eldridge, 1984).
6. Phonics instruction should be explicit, not implicit. In explicit
instructionphonics44the information taught dhildren is referred to directly and in
isolation. For example, dhildren are told that hat begins with the speech
sound /h/, followed by the speech sounds /g/ and /t/. Pupils are taught to
apply these rules to hat by blending these three speech sounds together to
produce the approximate pronunciation of the word. In implicit phonics
taught onlyinstruction the speech sound-letter correspondences of hat are
within the Whole word, and not as isolated items. To learn the h /h/ rule
the teacher using implieitphonics instruction would have pupils listen to
hit, hat, hot, etc. and then infer that they all begin with /h/.
Explicitchonics teaching is preferable because it does not presuppose
what it purports to teach. In the Above example of implicit phonicSIchildren
would have to understand ahead of time that words are made up of certain
discrete speech sounds. Explicit phonics teaching makes no such presupposition.
It teaches such information before it is applied by the pupil. There appears
to be no evidence that hearing or producing imprecise speech sounds, as is
done in explicit phonics teaching, is an Obstacle to dhildren's learning to
decode written words (Anderson, et al., 135). As was noted, young children
7
)
also can readily infer and produce the correct pronunciations of words
after hearing approximate pronunciations of them. Finally, "the trend of
the [achievement test] data favors explicit phonics" (p. 42).
7. Phonics instruction should aim to teach children to produce the
approximate pronunciations of written words. Some opponents of phonics
teaching have argued that because the application of phonics knowledge does
not result in the correct pronunciation of words it should not be taught.
Other critics of phonics instruction have maintained that only a small
number of phonics rules have "utility," that isiwill produce the corre2t
pronunciations of written words when applied to them.
These are insubstantial complaints against phonics instruction. As
linguists have reminded teadhers, it is impossible to isolate speech sounds
and give them their authentic soundings. When isolated speedh sounds are
blended together by the child learning to read (e.g., /b/-/V-W, or
/b/-/gt/, or /]g/-/t/) the resultant pronunciation will never be a true
replication of the way bat is spoken. However, pupils learning to read can
easily infer the correct pronunciation of bat after hearing the above
approximate pronunciations of it.
Then, those who advise the teaching of only a few phonics rules also
offer poor advice. They are in error in claiming that a few of these rules
when applied will result in the actual pronunciations of words. The appli-
cation of phonics rules can never have this consequence. But, as was noted,
this shortcoming seems to have little if any effect on Ohildren learning to
decode written words.The argument for teaching just a few phonics rules thus
can be shown to be based on a faulty conception of the role of phonics
in word recognition.
The proper thing to say about phonics rules is the more rules that are
learned and applied,the better. The more Phonics rules children can apply
the closer they can come to the true pronunciation of a written word when
they try to decode it.
8
8. Phonics instruction, to be the most productive, requires a credible
system for syllabicating words. Knowledg::: of how long words can be broken
into their separate syllables is Important for the beginning reader to acquire
for two major reasons. One, the Child can use this information to reduce the
exercise of decoding written words to a more manageable task. For example,
the challenge of decoding the word, interesting, is reduced significantly if
the word can be reduced to int-er-est-ing. Two, the ability to syllabicate words
cadbe.. easy for children to learn. For one thing, young children ordinarily
can detect the number of syllables in a spoken word before they can learn to
convey the number of speech sounds in it. Learning to determine the number
of syllables in a word obviously is easier for a child to learn to do than
is learning to name its speech sounds. The highly simplified form of
syllabication, to be described to follow, is easy to teach.
Despite the inherent value to beginning readers of being Able to
syllabicate long words, over the years teachers have been given inaccurate
if not dangerous advice as to how to conduct syllabication Instruction. Most
of this unacceptable and misleading advice stems from the erroneous notion
of teacher educators that learning the syllabication systel dictionaries
use to syllabicate words will assist children in recognizing them. Little
said in the defense of dictionary syllabication practices for this purpose
has any merit. Linguists have noted, in fact, that most of the rules for
syllabication taught in schools have no relation to the rules for the pro-
nunciaticn of words (Groff & Seymour, 1987). This is because dictionary
pronunciation rules originated not from authentic descriptions of syllables,
but from end-of-the-line conventions established at the time of the invention
of the printing presss.
9
This unfortunate state of affairs has led some reading experts to call
for a moratorium on the teaching of all for forms of breaking down multi-
.syllabic words. But rather than teaching dictionary syllabication, or
to the contrary, insisting that no syllabication procedures be taught to the
beginning reader, teachers should take a third position. They should teachmultisyllabic
children to syllabicate/Written words by showing them how to identify
closed syllables (phonograms), ones that begin with a vowel letter and end
with a consonant letter (est; un). Children so instructed would try to
give speech sounds to the letters in these phonograms, and then blend each
syllable so decoded into a multisyllabic/tword'ithat it is hoped will
have the approximate pronunciation of a true word. It is found that
if young Children can gain the approximate pronunciation of a multisyllabic word
they can then infer and produce the correct pronunciation of the word.
In superior phonics programs by the time children are taught this phono-
gram approach to the syllabication of written words they already would have
learned that the "short" vowel sounds (/g/-/g/-g/-18/4) and the "long"often
vowel sounds (/5/46/417-467-41.17)/Can be applied successfully to vowel
letters when closed syllables are decoded. Children previously should have
learned to recognize the phonograms,in and ish, for example, in words like
pirLand fish. NOw they are ready to be taught to apply this knowledge to
recognize words like finish.
The attractiveness of this phonogram approach to syllabication is that
little else is needed to be taught children in order for them to decode
multisyllabic words. After auch instruction children will soon recognize the
presence of affixes (re,less) in these words. To this knowledge they will
then add an awareness of how the morphemes of words act as effective cues to
word recognition. Fbr example, once the child recognizes the morpheme, apply
.10
he or she is greatly aided in the recognition of applies, appliod, applying,
applicant, application, applicable, applicator, applique, appliance,
applicative, and appikatory.
9. Phonics instruction must recognize that multisyllabic words are
significantly more difficult to read. The previous discussion on syllabication
implies that multisyllabic words are sUbstantially more difficult for young
readers to recognize than are monosyllabic ones. Since the 1920s research
has shown that the number of syllables in a word demonstrably influences the
ease with which beginning readers can recognize it. It is suggested that
two times more phonics rules are needed to decode vowel letters in two-
syllable words than in one-syllabla r'nes (Groff & Seymour, 1987).
These facts about the relative arduousness of recognizing multisyllabic
words unfortunately is generally ignored by the writers of phonics programs
currently in use. The lack of distinction given to these two kinds of words
is the result of convictions by reading experts that to so do would
restrict the range of words offered beginning readers so badly that the
rhetoric of the materials given Children to read would appear unnatural and
therefore unattractive. There seems little doubt that limiting the sentences
given novice readers to only words of one syllable would evenuate in
artificial appearing prose.
Calling teachers' attention to the dissimilarities of multi- and
monosyllabic words should not imply, ther,,that only sentences with one-
syllable words must be provided beginning readers. Becoming alert to the.
contrasts in these two sets of words, instec 1, prompts teachers not to
expect Children to recognize the multisyllabic words in sentences at the
outset of reading instruction. At this point, the teacher Should be oontent,
rather, to have children decode only monosyllabic words in sentences for a
specified stretch of time. During this period teachers would be on hand to
provide for Children the identities of multisyllabic words given them to read.i 3
10. Phonics instruction can be successfully carried out with Children
with diverse backgrounds and Abilites. This teaching must be designed to
take into consideration children's varying intellectual capacities and life
experiences, the dialects of English or foreign language that they speak,
and their psycholgical or physical handicaps, if any. Despite the fact that
Children differ greatly in these respects, the fundamental goal of phonics
teaching for all children is to bring them to a conscious awareness of the
nanner in which the speeeh sounds of English are represented in writing by
tlm letters of the alphabet. In this regard, the body of phonics, arranged
andinto a hierarchy of items of ascending difficulty,/taught these various
Children,should remain essentially the same for all.
For slower-learning children the pace at which the items in this body
of phonic information is imparted normally will be reduced. More repetitions
or examples of each speech sound-letter correspondence usually are called
for. More graphic illustrations of these correspondences often are needed.
For example, the use of counters of different sizes, dhapes, and colors
to represent speech sounds has been found to be an effective way to develop
slow-learners' conscious awareness of speech sounds. With these children
teachers should make sure they can distinguish words that rhyme fram those
spokenthat do not, can say whether twoiewords are the same or different, can listen
to isolated sounds (e.g., /13/-/g/40 and name the word they produce when
spokenblended, can tell whether twoeords begin alike, can name the first sound
of monosyllabic words, can calculate the nuMber of speech sounds in mono-
syllabic words,cnn determine if there is a given speech sound in these
short words, Anddan pronounce the word that would be left if a certain
speech sound were removed from a word (e.g., It/ removed from stand) befom
these pupils begin learning about speech sound-letter correspondences.
; 4
12
Linguistically diverse children, those who speak other than the standard
English dialect of the geographical region in which they reside, also need
a phonics program that keeps their linguistic backgrounds in mind. Today's
teachers may encounter the nonstandard, socioeconomic, or ethnic dialect
known as "black EngliSh." This dialect differs from standard English in its
vocabulary, in its grammatical system, and in its speech sounds, including
their suprasegmentals (stresses, pitches, junctures, and lengths).
Teachers of speakers of black English have the responsibility to under-
stand the relationShips between the standard English they speak and black
English. They should make sure, in this regard, that their interacticos
with these dhildren do not stress What teachers view as appropriate linguistic
behavior to the detriment of the development of processes with these
children for recognizing words. Especially, teadhers are Obligated to
consider not only how black English speakers stand in relation to standard
English speakers, but how they got there, i.e., the home-school linguistic
mismatch (Groff & Seymour, 1987). They should not assume, moreover, that
black English speakers can learn to apply phonics information to decode
conventionally spelled words only after they learn how to utter standard
English..
When teaching the r = /r/ correspondence, for example, the
teacher of black English speakers would be satisfied when these pupils
they understand that thesedecode for as IfE5/. Here teachers demonstrate
pupils have translated the pronunciation of for into their black English
dialect.
This decision does not deny the importance of t9aching black English
speaking children to speak standard English. To the contrary, the penalties
13
for speaking a nonstandard dialect in our society are grave and weighty:
miseducation, negative self-concepts, antipathetic and disapproving attitudes
on the part of significant others, and inappropriate psyChological assess-
ments and educational placements. It is clear that full access to the high
social status and financial rewards gained in the upper levels of social,
political, and economic life are not available to the speakers of
nonstandard English. The attainment of standard English by the bladk English
speaking Child should be the goal of tie school for the obvious reasons.
Progress in teaching this child phonics information does not have to await
this accomplishment, however.
Beyond the problem 'black English speakers/teachers in many schoolsof
A
will find increasingly.large numbers of foreign language speaking
pupils entering the schools of lathy particularly those Who speak 4panish
and southeast Asian languages. Ordinarily, for these foreign language
speakers/instruction in English as a second language must precede any
instruction in English phonics. Children who are literate in a language
like Vietnamese face the additional problem of adapting to a new writing
system/as well as an unfamiliar pattern of speech sounds when learning
English phonics information.
There remains much controversy over the type of instruction in English
as a second language that these Children Should receive. Proposals for this
purpcse range from those for immersing the child in English for teaching
such children tn their native langauge along with English for two or three
years, to those for maintaining instruction in both the Child's native
language and in English throughout the child's school career.
Ininersing English speaking children in a foreign language program Iworks
very well: it is found (Ovando & Collier, 1985, p. 43). NOnethelessothere
foreign language speaking children inare many opponents to immersing
English. There seems to be no logical reason, however, why, this approach
familiar with the nativewill not also work well if conducted by teachers
language of dhildren who are immersed in English. The argument given, for
children who are immersed in Englishexample, that foreign language speaking
of their native language fromwill not receive support for the maintainance
unconvincing complaint against immersion-their families seems a particularly
in.Eriglish programs.
langauge program that is con-Whatever the kind of English as a second
that once foreign langauge speaking pupilsducted, it is important to reemphasize
their approximateare able to identify and produce EngliSh speech sounds (or
English given them should proceedequivalents) the phonics instruction in
native English speakers. In short, therealong the same lines as that given
devised particularly or exclusivelyis no need for a special phonics program
phonics teacher in this instancefor foreign language speaking children. The
children may have difficulty inrecognizes that foreign language speaking
speech sounds. As with blackdistinguishing and producing certain English
approximate orEnglish speaking children, the teacher here accepts
foreign languageequivalent sounds of standard English uttered by
them English phonics on this basis.speaking dhildrenend proceeds to teach
children's training in English phonics informationThe unique aspect of these
thus is in the preparation they are given to develop the prerequisite
successfully learn English phonics, and islinguistic readiness they need to
of the Phonicsnot the arrangement of the scope, sequence, and content
program itself.
15
Children with psycholo9ical and physical problems present yet other
challenges for the teacher of phonics. The major, undesirable misbehavior
exhibited by children with psychological problems is their seeming inability
to pay attention to their teachers. Shortening the time period of phonics
periods therefore reduces this problem to a degree. In addition, conducting
phonics lessons at a brisk pace, dealing with only a small segment of phonicsof
information in a lesson, frequent regroupingelildren on the basis of their
achievements, conducting phonics lessons as games, puzzles, or innoculous
competitions, constant demonstrations to Children of the progress they are
making in learning phonics information, using the "total response" technique
through Which each child answers every question asked by the teacher, pro-
viding extra feedback to pupils' responses, and even providing concrete
rewards are found to help to stimulate the inattentive pupil.
Teachers have also discovered that speaking in uncomplicated sentences,
requiring pupils to repeat teacher dixecticns or explanations cr other
pupils' responses, branching into material that children have already learned,
allowing children to explain matters to their peers or pose questions to
them, and making sure all children are listening before a lessen begins can
have positive effects on pupils' attentiveness. Of course, teachers should
employ with psychologically handicapped Children the standard practices of
removing distracting influences, appearing enthusiastic and poskive aboutA
what is being taught, moving children from their seats to the dhalkboard so
as add variety and to work off muscular discomfiture, and attaching humor to
help the inattentive childthe different concepts being taught. Mese acts
to listen and attend more intently.
Children who have impaired vision or hearing obviously face unusual
16
difficulties in learning phonics information. The potential interference on
this learning from the presence of such handicaps should not be unduly
exaggerated, however. It is found that physically impaired Children often
can make remarkable adjustments to their physical Shortcomings and accomodate
surprising well to the task of processing written langauge. Accordingly,
the principle of maintaining these Children in the least restrictive
educational environment possible, "mainstreaming" them, has come to be widely
accepted. It is wrong to always assume, then, that these dhildren's lack ct
success in learning phonics information is caused by their physical handi-
caps. This may be an unwarranted yet self-fulfilling prophesy. Simplc,
expedient actions by the teacher to write more legibly and larger, or to
amplify the speech sounds taught in phonics may prove this conjecture to be
wrong.
11. Phonics instruction does not cause "hyperlexia" or "word-calling."
It has been discovered that some children read individual words better than
they can oomprehend written sentences or longer discourses. The presence of
such dhildren doubtless accounts to some extent for the clatm that children
taught phonics are likely to become "word-callers," that is, Able to decode
written words accurately and quickly but unable to understand the meaning
of the material they so ably read aloud.
This phenomenon has also been called "hyperlexia." Studies of the matter
reveal that with some children striking differences are Observable in their
reading test scores, differences that favor word recognition Ability over
reziding comprehension. It has been hypotheti,e0. that the acquisition by
these dhildren of superior word recognition skills has interfered with their
capacity to comprehend reading materials, or on the other hand, that they
natter
do not have the intelligence to learn phonicsibut4have some innate talent
17
18
that allows them to recognize words by as "wholes" by "sight."
Both of these explanations of hyperlexia lack supporting evidence, how-
ever (Groff, 1989). There is no data to suggest that hyperlexic children
do not have the intelligence needed to learn phonics information. There is
no reason to believe, therefore, that they recognize words as wholes without
any use of phonics cues. Although there has been no systematic study of
how hyperlexics learn to recognize words, there seems nothing in the present
evidence an their condition that implies that preventing them from learning
phonics will reduce the severity of their handicap. The belief that as these
children acquire decoding abilities this particular skill development has a
negative effect on their growth of reading comphrehension competencies thus
is not convincing.
A more reasonable explanation can be given for the appearance of this
disability. Hyperlexic children exhibit many of the symptoms of neurological
impairmentIsuch as retarded motor development and an extreme delay in oral
language development. The specific neurological condition involved in hyper-
lexia thus likely accounts for the cognitive and linguistic dysfunction
that impairs hyperlexic children's ability to comprehend written material.
There may be no such dysfunction that interferes with their capacity to
decode words. If so, it is the cognitive-linguistic function that controls
reading comprehension, but not decoding, that goes askew in these children.
Whether hyperlexia stems from innate physiological impairment, from
environmental factors, or a combination of both, the evidence on the malady
does not support the allegation that phonics instruction interferes with
children's development of reading comprehension skills, or that phonics
teaching creates excellent decoders who nonetheless cannot mderstand what
they attempt to read. Gaps between word recognition and reading compre-
tsizilly
hension scores found in children wi4,1, narrow significantly after they
19
reasonableare given compensatory reading comprehension instructj.on. The
assumption, therefore, tor otherwise normal children/whose word recognition
scores exceed their reading comprehension scores/is to simply provide them
reading comprehension. It will be found that thesome additional instruction in
true hyperlexic dhild will not respond readily to such teaching in a
child's inability to comprehendpositive fashion. The amelioration of this
written material demands the attention of reading specialists.
contradict the "learning styles"12 . Phonics instruction successes
that children learn to readtheory. Some reading experts support the theory
more effectively if their preferred "learning style or modality"--either
teaching method that isvisual, auditory, or kinesthetic--is matched with a
(Carbo, Dunn & Dunn, 1986). Itoriented to one of these supposed modalities
Child who somehow hasfollows, these reading authorities contend, that the
developed a"visuaiglearning style should not be taught phonics. The purported
taken to mean the child cannot useacquisition of a visual learning style is
auditory cues or visual-auditory cues When learning to read.
is used as proof that phonicsThis belief in learning modalities then
children.teaching is not an essential part of reading instruction for
EVen for. children, it must be emphasized, who have learned to speak quite
separate speach sounds of English).normally (but s-pposedly cannot hear the
opponents of phonics teaching toFaith in the learning style theory leads
important [in learning to read] is notthe general conclusion that ''What is
phonics (Carbo, 1988, p. 237).
the hypothesis thatof the research made onSeveral reviews are available
are closely linked toif children's presumedly preferred learning modalities
natures of the sensory modalitiesteaching methods that reflect the various
Children will then learn to read more effectively (Groff, 1987). This
hypothesis is uniformly rejected by the conclusions of these surveys of the
relevant findings. The theory postulates that learning styles are relatively
stable, that is, are enduring Characteristics of the individual. In this
regard it is reasonable to inquire how one accounts for children who are in
the process of developing a learning style, or Who use a different learning
:style to take a reading test than one they use in normal reading.
Ithen disinterested critics of the theory have made analyses of tests of
learning styles they have found these tests to have low test-retest
reliability.. In,,,sum, the research on learning styles, other than that done
by those who apPear ideologically committed to it, does not suggest that
Children with normal speaking-listening abilities have so.called learning
styles that preclude their acquisition of phonics knowledge.
Tb the contrary, there is much experimental evidence that questions the
theory, that is, thatvalidity of the major assumption of the reading styles
significant nuMbers of otherwise normal children have a genetic, Innate dis-
position of probably a neurological nature that prevents them from learninginstead,
thephonics information. This evidence suggest5/hat phonological Ability,
conscious awareness of speech sounds, can be taught successfully to young
relatively Short period ofchildren who exhibit a lack of this Ability in a
children thus does nottime. The lack of such phonological ability in
generally indicate that they suffer from some specific neurological disability
This lack indicates merel: that these Children as yet(Coles, 1987).
have not been taught this ability, but can be, and should be.
20
21
Summary
Phonics instruction is a useful practice for the development of children's
word recognition skills. Both traditional experimental evidence and the
Observations of teachers attest to this fact. The "great debate" among
reading experts over how dhildren should be taught to read (Chall, 1983)oyer
nonetheless continuesi, whether phonics information serves this function.
Those who claim it does not can only come to this conclusion by rejecting
the traditional empirical research findings on word recognition. This they
willingly do, substituting the findings of *quasi-experimental or naturalistic
research for those of conventional research. In this process they depend on
subjective, personal observations, interview data, diaries and note taking,
case studies and anecdotes, extremely small samples, and "a lot cf intuition"
(Guthrie & Hall, 1984, p. 91). The defenders of such research Show little or
no concern whether it violates the hallmarks of traditional research:
objectivity and reliability. It is true, then, that whether one is a defender
or an opponent of phonics instruction depends on what model of research one
views as valid.
Those who endorse the traditional research modelfand its dependence on
objective, standardized test data, can find ample grounds for employing
phonics instruction. As the above discussion indicates, they now also have
available to them mudh information on What kind of phonics instruction
produces the greatest degree of word recognition ability possible. As well,
effective refutations for the common undocumented charges against the use
_Of phonics instruction are readily found. There thus is no reason, from
this writer's vantage point, for not teaching phonics information to
children in a direct, systematic, and intensive fashion,and as soon as they
can learn it.
References
Anderson, R. C., et al. (1985). Becoaing a nation of readers. WaShington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
Carbo, M. (1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. Phi Delta Kappan, 70,
226-240.
Carbo, M.; Dunn, R.; & Dunn, K. (1986). TeaChing students to read through
their individual learning styles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate. New YOrk, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Coles, G. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at °learning
disabilities." New York, NY: Pantheon.
Goodman, K. (1986). What's Whole in Whole languge? Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Goodman, K. S., et al. (1988). Report card on basal readers. Katonah, NY:
Richard C. Owen.
Groff, P. (1983). A test of the utility of phonics rules. _Reading
Psychology, 4, 217-225.
(Groff, P. 1989). Phonics-capable children who can't comprehend.
Reading Instruction Journal, in press.
Groff, P. and Seymour, D.Z. (1987). Word recognition: The why and the how.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
approaches to readingGuthrie, L. F. & Hall, W. S. (1984). Ethnographic
York, NY:research. In P. D. Pearson4 Handbook of reading research. New
Longman.
Johnson, D. D. & Baumann, J. F. (1984). Word identification. In P. D.
Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York, NY: Longman.
Newman, J. M. (1985). What about reading? In J. W. Newman (Ed.), Whole
language: Theory in use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
22
Otto, W.; Wolf, A.; & Eldridge, R. G. (1984). Managing instruction. In
P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York, NY: Longman.
Ovando, C. J. & Collier, V. P. (1985). Bilingual and ESL classrooms.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Weaver, C. (1989). The basalization of America: A cause for concern. In
C. B. Smith (Ed.), Two reactions to the report card on basal readers.
Baoceington, IN: ERIC rlearinghouse on Reading and Communication SkillS.
Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests.
Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159-177.
23